We seem to be at a critical crossroads in this country. As
the merits of market capitalism are tested against the growing power of state
run economies such as China, and as the struggle of the average American continues
to increase, the role of the ultra wealthy has been called into question. What
moral obligations do the rich in this country have? If there exists any, is it
the role of the private citizen or that of the government to see these fulfilled?
These questions are nearly impossible to answer without igniting what is arguably
one of the more contentious debates in recent memory. While the title and
my introductory explanation of this blog suggest that Latin Literature will
play a key part (and it will) in my discussions, I found an example too good to
pass up in my English class this semester.
To better
understand this moral divide, and for some consolation in knowing that we are
not the first to have such a debate, we will take a brief look at the role of
wealth and excess in the Medieval English work Piers Plowman by William Langland. Perhaps one of the most
confusing pieces of medieval literature to scholars, Piers Plowman touches on some heavy societal issues including the
role of merchants and prosperity. Characters within the work are represented by
abstract concepts such as ‘Envy’, ‘Gluttony’ and the knight ‘Conscience’. Most
central to the work however is the maid “Mede” which is a Middle English term
for either “wage, reward, or the profit motive”. I think the very definition
itself is telling to the struggle William Langland’s world had with money. The
profit motive is a very ambiguous term, whereas a wage is clearly a beneficial
concept. Is the profit motive a good or bad thing or can it be both? Does
wealth inevitably lead to corruption? The author at one point describes a
person who will do anything for money, as he says “for silver is sweet”. The Knight
Conscience talks of how Mede leads people to “lose their lives and their lands
both”. However, Langland feels that money and prosperity are a practical means for
a quality of life, and later describes how wealthy merchants should profit as
much as possible in order to “have hospitals built with it (profit)” “build
bridges that have broken down, send scholars to school or set them to a craft”.
I suppose I
would draw this to a close in saying that the values and morals in question
during the 14th century reflect that of the current day. Wealth and
prosperity would seem to incur some responsibility along with them. Within the
American system however, we face a critical debate on where that responsibility
should lie, and what role our own Constitution should have in this process.
There is no doubt that labor, trade, and commerce employ and create opportunity
for all those involved, and the prosperity of few can translate into the
uplifting of many. However it is also true that this same prosperity can lead
to decisions that have far reaching ramifications and can leave many with
nothing. How do we deal with this as a country, and what other literary sources
exist that explore this same problem? I look forward to hearing back.
This brings up some interesting points indeed. I actually attended a lecture by Ronald Inglehart - you should read his books, they're fantastic - earlier today on a similar topic; his theory deduced that, as a government's economy stabilizes (such as that of China), it's citizens will gradually shed their "survival mode," and begin focusing on more abstract ideals such as individuality and meaning in life...these implicit changes have shown to lead to more liberal/democratic cultures, and their government often follows. So, based on this theory, at least, the conflict may not be between the single vs. multi-party state so much as it is between socioeconomic classes within the both of them. It's intriguing to see that we are a state that boasts democracy, yet almost alludes to a series of hierarchies via the corporation. The issue now is whether or not that should be allowed. In my opinion, there's no doubt that it's within constitutional bounds...but is the constitution right, in this respect? That, I'm not so sure of.
ReplyDeleteI think your point about China is very prudent. I often find myself wondering how long their current social structure will last into the future. As for corporate hierarchies, I think the important thing to remember is that everyone is given a chance to found a company, and climb that ladder on their own which is something that defines a free society and a free market system. However, I agree that more specifically campaign finance poses a reasonable problem to our system in its current form, but I also have no idea what the fair and constitutional answer to that is either. And lastly as to whether or not the constitution is correct or not, I don't really think that is a debate Americans should be having as it can become very dangerous.
ReplyDeleteI tend to agree with you about the idea of the corporation; as I said, there's no doubt that Americans are within their constitutional rights in creating a business and nurturing it to whatever extent they are able. And as for the constitution itself, you're completely correct; we all ought to have the utmost respect for such a document.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I'll be extremely interested to see how our relations with China develop as they move into the modern era. It's definitely intriguing that they have had the amounts of success they've had with only a one-party state. I suppose it may be more efficient, but the freedom of capitalism is to be preferred over efficiency in my semi-ignorant opinion.